The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[Cowboy_Pete]

While that fact does not in itself pose a problem for the Mormon teachings on baptism, it does create a problem for the Mormon criticism of Catholic baptism by pouring or sprinkling.

I’m not criticizing your baptism, Soren. Please look at the context. I was merely stating the clear fact that an earlier poster was mistaken in the claim that Catholics have never changed the form of any of their sacraments. Clearly, Jesus was baptized in a river, and clearly baptism was meant to parallel the Jewish Mikva which involved immersion. Therefore, right or wrong, your sacrament has changed. That’s not a criticism; merely a fact. The change in baptism allowed it to be done to a greater number of people, and to infants, whom it’s not safe to immerse. Indeed, the process is so speedy and convenient that one Chinese general baptized his entire army with a fire hose. And if you believe that Baptism is what makes you a Christian, rather than something you do because you are Christian, then it makes sense to relax the rules and seek a form more easily administered.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

First of all, my husband (and my sons) would probably be very disturbed if he found out I was really a guy. :bigyikes:

Thank you for correcting me. I shan’t make that error again. Hope you forgive me for the other one, the typo.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Polygamy cannot, by its very nature, multiply numbers, because a woman who shares a single man will become pregnant less often than women who has one man to herself. This never dawned on the Utah Mormons, or on Brigham Young, who only considered polygamy’s advantages from the aspect of male fertility. Yet it has recently been proven, by a study at Indiana University of over 70,000 Utah Mormons in the 19th century, that far from raising up seed to the Lord, Mormon polygamy crashed the population. The general trend impact of polygamy is that for every new wife added to a a family, the other wives would tend to have one less child each; this swiftly made polygamy counterproductive. Monogamous Mormons had far more children on average than polygamous ones.

Well of course they did, because the ignorant researcher failed to take into account the fact that a large number of plural wives were widows in their 30s, who obviously had fewer children after the plural marriage than a young woman marrying for the first time.

Since Jeffs’ modern inbred pligs marry them very young, I bet that the research would show a different set of numbers for them.

I have two polygamous ancestresses, but no male polygamous ancestors. Can you explain that mystery, based on what I told you?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

First of all, my husband (and my sons) would probably be very disturbed if he found out I was really a guy. :bigyikes:

Like I’ve said elsewhere, I do have some ‘trust issues’ when it comes to LDS truthfulness about their beliefs, because I’ve had problems in the past in dealing with some Mormons who were less than honest about what they really believed. I was looking for honesty, but they just gave me BS answers. An LDS friend told me in a PM that it was a common practice for Mormons to avoid answering certain questions, or admitting to certain beliefs, because they knew those beliefs might be seen as ‘odd’ by outsiders, so sometimes they’d just lie about believing it. (Apparently, they don’t think very highly of some of their beliefs if they’re unwilling to admit believing in them.) If LDS were more up front about what they really believed, I wouldn’t have this trust problem and neither would other people. I was just looking for honesty, and all I got was BS, except for that one friend that was nice enough to tell me the truth. I can’t even recall what the specific discussion was about, but I was given a verbal flogging by several other LDS, just for asking a question, or daring to ‘imply’ that they ever believed any such thing (even though they did).

Are you sure that they did? You sure that the one that PMed you wasn’t in error, or lying?

I wish that you remember what the subject was about. I promise that if you ask me something that I don’t want to talk about, I’ll just tell you I don’t want to talk about this. E.g. temple stuff that I’ve promised not to talk about outside the temple. That’s not a secret; I can even tell you where to go to get the answer. I just can’t discuss it personally…

 

[soren1]

I’m not criticizing your baptism, Soren. Please look at the context. I was merely stating the clear fact that an earlier poster was mistaken in the claim that Catholics have never changed the form of any of their sacraments. Clearly, Jesus was baptized in a river, and clearly baptism was meant to parallel the Jewish Mikva which involved immersion. Therefore, right or wrong, your sacrament has changed. That’s not a criticism; merely a fact. The change in baptism allowed it to be done to a greater number of people, and to infants, whom it’s not safe to immerse. Indeed, the process is so speedy and convenient that one Chinese general baptized his entire army with a fire hose.

I was aware of the context. And your response here is misguided, because immersion is a accident of ritual style, and not a formal element of baptism. If the Church has always taught that immersion is not an absolute requirement, then it is not a change in the form of baptism to do it less frequently at one time or more frequently at another. The teaching of the Didache is identical with the teaching of Catholic Church today. No relaxatin of the rules follows from this. Unless you first establish that immersion was a rule in the early Church you have no basis to claim that we have changed the rules at any point.

And if you believe that Baptism is what makes you a Christian, rather than something you do because you are Christian, then it makes sense to relax the rules and seek a form more easily administered.

How do you figure that? Are you saying that the belief that Baptism actually achieves regeneration lowers our estimation of the correct form of Baptism? I should think that believing baptism to be efficacious makes it all the more important to get it right. This seems to be less of an evidential argument from you than an assertion of your own moral judgment about the importance of the correct form of baptism. But the importance of correct form is not at issue. What is at issue is a specific claim about what the correct form of baptism. Is immersion and essential or accidental feature? Until you have established that it is essential, then you have no basis to impute to us any laxity in following the rules.

As a matter of fact, I know a priest who once had the embarrassment of baptizing a child twice, because he accidentally said the words wrong the first time. He said, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but forgot to say, “I baptize you.” This priest was right to redo it, since by Catholic theology that formal omission does in fact invalidate the sacrament. This illustrates that the importance of form in itself is not at issue, but rather the contents that define correct form.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Are you saying that the belief that Baptism actually achieves regeneration lowers our estimation of the correct form of Baptism?

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking, but I’m quite sure that the answer is no, that’s not what I meant. I’m not saying that you esteem baptism less; I’m saying that Catholics apply a different meaning to baptism than most of the rest of the Christian world. Because on this topic, most Protestants actually agree with the Mormons. And no, that’s not a criticism either. Not questioning that you’re Christian.

Agreed as to form and content; we use the same words, and if the priest had made the error in our church, he’d have to re-do it as well.

Until you have established that it is essential, then you have no basis to impute to us any laxity in following the rules.

I haven’t imputed “laxity;” I have pointed out a change. You feel its a nonessential change, and I would respond that our church has not changed any sacrament in an essential manner, either.

The inbred pligs that pretend that polygamy was the eternal and unchangeable convenant are ignoring the 30-40 verses that come between the statements about eternal and unchangeable, and the gunk about plural marriage.

 

[soren1]

Well of course they did, because the ignorant researcher failed to take into account the fact that a large number of plural wives were widows in their 30s, who obviously had fewer children after the plural marriage than a young woman marrying for the first time.

Are you sufficiently familiar with the study to pass this quick verdict to the effect that it lacked proper experimental controls? In point of fact, the study is rigorous in that regard, comparing only women with the same birth years, taking times of marriage into account and considering lifetime fertility rather then just the fertility that occurred within a given marriage.

You wrote this response so quickly, that I cannot imagine you actually went and read my posts. That’s ok. If you already heard of the study, and heard a response to it from someone else, you might not have known why your response is in error. You can find the thread here. My comments on the topic extend from post #37 to post #66. If you want to respond to me, read my discussion with rmcmullen and comment on the actual evidence presented there. I also have a copy of the actual study in PDF form that I can send you if you like.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Are you sufficiently familiar with the study to pass this quick verdict to the effect that it lacked proper experimental controls? In point of fact, the study is rigorous in that regard, comparing only women with the same birth years, taking times of marriage into account and considering lifetime fertility rather then just the fertility that occurred within a given marriage.

You wrote this response so quickly, that I cannot imagine you actually went and read my posts. That’s ok. If you already heard of the study, and heard a response to it from someone else, you might not have known why your response is in error. .

Thanks for the link, and for correcting my assumption with regard to age groups.
Did the researcher take into account the disproportion of women to men in the late 1800s population? What about the survival rates of widows’ children? Because the latter is the story of my own polygamous ancestresses.

I’m looking up the Jacob 2 scripture …

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto [God’s command of faithful monogamy].

Interesting. I wonder if the “raise up seed unto me” exception refers to an overall population increase, or to something else.

Apologies for assuming that you were referring to another piece of research that I’d read about some time back.

 

[Stephen168]

First of all I could not have lied in post #302 because you wrote post #302.
In post #304 I said: “My information comes from two books which use the ancient historian Esubius of Ceaserea as the primary source and were not written by LDS authors.” I gave the reference to these books in post #309. If it is fantasy, it is not Mormon fantasy, since these books were not written by LDS authors.

And Eusebius wrote before the Council so he could not have written about it. As I said before the fantasy is held by other religions invented in 19th century America so referencing but not quoting non-mormon authors who also claim Eusebius as a source doesn’t really change anything.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Thanks for the link, and for correcting my assumption with regard to age groups.
Did the researcher take into account the disproportion of women to men in the late 1800s population? What about the survival rates of widows’ children? Because the latter is the story of my own polygamous ancestresses.

I’m looking up the Jacob 2 scripture …

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto [God’s command of faithful monogamy].

If I remember correctly in the thread Soren mentioned someone (maybe Parker) did say something along these lines. Again if IRC the *“raise up seed unto me”

• was not about population increase but about raising righteous, committed children.

 

[mtolympus]

First of all, my husband (and my sons) would probably be very disturbed if he found out I was really a guy. :bigyikes:

I’m sorry Mrs. Telstar.

 

[mtolympus]

Mt Olympus,
Stephen168 baits all the mormons this way. Engages you in an argument and then starts calling you a liar.

Let me save you a lot of grief.

Cowboy Pete: Thanks for the information, however it doesn’t bother me. When someone starts calling you a liar instead of defending his own position, you know you have won the point. I think honest people recognize this.
Did you see my response to your question?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

"Rebecca:

According to mtolympus, you’re not a good source to getting a handle on what Mormons are thinking these days.

Cowboy Pete:

Is that what you actually said, MtOlympus, or is Rebecca distorting your meaning? Is a member who isn’t in good standing because of a Word of Wisdom problem of 3 years running, necessarily not a good source for what Mormons are thinking these days?

I was responding to some comments from Telstar who obviously didn’t know what he was talking about. Telstar was thanking Rebecca (a former LDS) for giving him the honest information and that current LDS white washed everyting and could not be beleived. I did not question Rebecca’s honesty, but I told Telstar that current LDS members were able to to give better information than former members about the thought of other current members of the LDS church. I was talking about people like Rebecca not people like you. For the exact story read posts 292, 296 and 301.

I did, and my reading concurs with your statement of intent. I just wanted to get it from you to reply to Rebecca’s attempt to start a quarrel. I could have shown from the text of what you said that she was grossly misrepresenting you, but then she would have said that I was “proof-texting” again … Rebecca thinks it’s bad to actually read words in order to ascertain meaning … we’re supposed to go to the Magesterium to determine what anything means.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I
I disagree. There’s not much mormon literature or film out there, but consider the movie Brigham City, the kindly protrayal of the jackmormon smoking police officer. Most everyone has a relative like me, and we aren’t treated with rejection. Some pity, and for the proud that’s hard to bear, yes. But rejection usually goes the other way. You’re pretty strong evidence of that yourself, Rebecca.

Hello Cowboy Pete,

Thanks for sharing so much of yourself. I hope for you there never comes a day where you stop believing, as, your current support will disappear, and it is clear that you need it.

Mormonism has an ambition to it that I don’t support. Mormons view that as a personal rejection. I was raised LDS and rejected that religion entirely, living most of my life as an atheist. I joined an RCIA class in 2007, with no intention of converting, I just had an atheists curiosity about what Christians believe.

God had different intentions, and I found myself on the fast track. From the outside, 8 or 9 months doesn’t look like a fast track, but on the inside, there were times I found it hard to breath I was so overwhelmed with what God was doing in my life.

I was baptized at Easter Vigil 2008. I didn’t invite any of my family, except my husband and daughter. I didn’t tell my Mormon family I was baptized at all, because I had already had experiences with them as an atheist, where I expressed my non-belief in their religion, and it didn’t go well. Some of my family know about my conversion now, and some of them view my conversion to Catholicism as a rejection of Mormonism as the least. Which, it is. A couple of Mormon family have expressed that I have rejected the entire family.



It’s more complex, I think, than saying Mormons reject people who leave and people who leave reject Mormons. There are some Mormons who can’t separate the rejection of Mormonism from rejection of themselves.

I tried for many years, as an atheist, to make it very clear to my Mormon friends and family that I don’t reject them. I went to all their Mormon events. Baptisms, blessing, missionary farewells, and enjoyed being with the people I love. But, there came a time, when they made it clear to me that I was like the tag-along kid you can’t get rid of no matter what you do to them. When I finally realized that all this time I was showing up, thinking I was among people who loved and cared for me as much as I did them, was an illusion, yeah, I stopped going to their Mormon events. I am also very aware that because I don’t go to the events they didn’t want me at to begin with, makes me the bad person, for not being there.

There is no winning with Mormons, Cowboy Pete. Either you do everything exactly as they do, and the reward is acceptance, or you live your life according to your own conscience, and get viewed with suspicion at best.

Currently, you’re in that place where you think Mormons love and care for you. My only advice is to prepare for the day when you discover that has been an illusion. It is a hard thing to face sober.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Hello Cowboy Pete,

Thanks for sharing so much of yourself. I hope for you there never comes a day where you stop believing, as, your current support will disappear, and it is clear that you need it.

Mormonism has an ambition to it that I don’t support. Mormons view that as a personal rejection. I was raised LDS and rejected that religion entirely, living most of my life as an atheist. I joined an RCIA class in 2007, with no intention of converting, I just had an atheists curiosity about what Christians believe.

God had different intentions, and I found myself on the fast track. From the outside, 8 or 9 months doesn’t look like a fast track, but on the inside, there were times I found it hard to breath I was so overwhelmed with what God was doing in my life.

I was baptized at Easter Vigil 2008. I didn’t invite any of my family, except my husband and daughter. I didn’t tell my Mormon family I was baptized at all, because I had already had experiences with them as an atheist, where I expressed my non-belief in their religion, and it didn’t go well. Some of my family know about my conversion now, and some of them view my conversion to Catholicism as a rejection of Mormonism as the least. Which, it is. A couple of Mormon family have expressed that I have rejected the entire family.



It’s more complex, I think, than saying Mormons reject people who leave and people who leave reject Mormons. There are some Mormons who can’t separate the rejection of Mormonism from rejection of themselves.

I tried for many years, as an atheist, to make it very clear to my Mormon friends and family that I don’t reject them. I went to all their Mormon events. Baptisms, blessing, missionary farewells, and enjoyed being with the people I love. But, there came a time, when they made it clear to me that I was like the tag-along kid you can’t get rid of no matter what you do to them. When I finally realized that all this time I was showing up, thinking I was among people who loved and cared for me as much as I did them, was an illusion, yeah, I stopped going to their Mormon events. I am also very aware that because I don’t go to the events they didn’t want me at to begin with, makes me the bad person, for not being there.

There is no winning with Mormons, Cowboy Pete. Either you do everything exactly as they do, and the reward is acceptance, or you live your life according to your own conscience, and get viewed with suspicion at best.

Currently, you’re in that place where you think Mormons love and care for you. My only advice is to prepare for the day when you discover that has been an illusion. It is a hard thing to face sober.

You’ve never talked to me as if I was a human being before, Rebecca. I rather like it. I hope you can sustain it.

I agree wholeheartedly that “There are some Mormons who can’t separate the rejection of Mormonism from rejection of themselves.” There are definitely some Mormons that are outright bigots. But I don’t think that’s unique to our people.

You have to realize that here in Vegas, there are bishops and stake presidents that will say from the stand that they are recovered drunks or drug addicts.

I can tell you categorically that what you describe is not how you would have been treated in my family – despite its imperfections.

God bless you, and I hope that this exchange signals a permanent change in how you and I speak to each other.

Peter

 

[Stephen168]

First of all I could not have lied in post #302 because you wrote post #302.
In post #304 I said: “My information comes from two books which use the ancient historian Esubius of Ceaserea as the primary source and were not written by LDS authors.” I gave the reference to these books in post #309. If it is fantasy, it is not Mormon fantasy, since these books were not written by LDS authors.

After thinking about it a bit while getting my horses ready for the farrier, I don’t know you are a liar. You may be repeating what you were told someone wrote. I do know you have been given false information.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well Peter, I do better among the sinners than I do among the saints. Christ’s Church being a hospital for sinners. An acknowledgement of our need, as sinners, being an acknowledgement of our need for the One Who has Saved us, Jesus Christ.

I have no doubt there are many LDS who struggle with addiction(s), or that most hide it under a façade of “saint”. It is evidence of our nature and our need.

St. Martin of Tours pray for us.

Peace.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Lets cease from the ‘lying’ comments shall we?

 

[mtolympus]

You may be repeating what you were told someone wrote.

I really do know how to read, honest!
I looked on the internet to see if the book I referenced in #309 is still available. Amazon has 58 new and used copies. It is a newer edition than the one I read (about ten years ago). The author is Justo L. Gonzalez which I miss-spelled in my reference. I really don’t think the book will be offensive to Catholics.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Pete & Olympus

Smith was not “murdered” CONJURES up a ROMANTIC IMAGE doesn’t it - did he not have a gun in his own hand and his INTENT was to SHOOT TO KILL.

John Taylor 3rd pres of the church says in "History of the Church, vol. 7, pp. 102-3 says:

“He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Whellock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died.”

Trying to compare gunfighter joe smith, with a ego that knows no bounds to JESUS CHRIST, the TRUE and ONLY LAMB of GOD, the GOD-MAN is IMPOSSIBLE.

I find the quote “…a determined expression of countenance…” very interesting and insightful.